toldailytopic: What do you think about the new openly gay military?

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 20th, 2011 11:01 AM


toldailytopic: What do you think about the new openly gay military?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 

ragTagblues

New member
I think their very well dressed . . . .

And lets face it should you ever get attacked by Christian Dior then you ain't gonna lose!

Seriously though, how is having gay people in an army even an issue, they have a right to serve their country and defend it. I don't see that it makes any difference.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I think it's no big deal, about time this silly DADT experiment ended, and I also think it's not an "openly gay military" but rather a military where gays can openly serve.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's gay.

:mock: :FrankiE:

But .. :noid:

We don't even have an army... :sigh:

Is a gay army better than no army at all? :think:

Invasion


:mock: :Kiwi:
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
It's gay.

:mock: :FrankiE:

But .. :noid:

We don't even have an army... :sigh:

Is a gay army better than no army at all? :think:

Invasion


:mock: :Kiwi:


Yeah, but you do have.....



Them sheep. :noid:


blacksheep.jpg
 

Quincy

New member
Well, researchers think 10% of the population is gay. About 3.8% admit to being gay so somewhere in the middle is the size of a group of people in the military serving our country, that are pretty happy about it. Good enough for me.
 

eameece

New member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 20th, 2011 11:01 AM


toldailytopic: What do you think about the new openly gay military?



About time. What Clinton should have just ordered in 1993, instead of all the baloney that followed.
 

MrDeets

TOL Subscriber
Two sodomites were walking down the beach, when one saw a boat on the water that had Ferry written on the back. He turned to his lover and said "Oh look! I didn't know we had a Navy!"
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I served ten years. The first seven of those years was before DADT. Basically DADT was that gays could serve as long as they didn't advertise the fact and the Brass could turn a blind eye. It was one the dumbest things Clinton ever did. Morale instantly began to drop. Then, I was serving in a P3 Orion unit. The Unit couldn't expel someone that was obviously homosexual and it killed the morale of the unit. Celebrations were muted after that.

DADT was the wrong thing to do. Allowing openly gay people to serve while flaunting their lifestyle in the open is even worse. A military with homosexuals in it isn't as cohesive or effective a fighting machine. The soldiers, airmen and sailors have to trust one another. Given the record that many in the homosexual community have, that trust cannot be built.

My husband has told me several accounts of how homosexuals behave toward their peers in the armed services. Here's one. A gets B drunk and rapes him in a bar. This happened in my husband's unit more than once. No amount of sensitivity training or political correctness is going to fix this problem.
 

PureX

Well-known member
I served ten years. The first seven of those years was before DADT. Basically DADT was that gays could serve as long as they didn't advertise the fact and the Brass could turn a blind eye. It was one the dumbest things Clinton ever did. Morale instantly began to drop. Then, I was serving in a P3 Orion unit. The Unit couldn't expel someone that was obviously homosexual and it killed the morale of the unit. Celebrations were muted after that.
Rape has nothing to do with homosexuality. Rape is rape regardless of the sexual preferences of the rapist. Rape is a crime regardless of the sex of the criminal. Rape was illegal before, and is illegal now. So it has no bearing on homosexuality at all.

Why did your unit want to expel that person just because they were "obviously" homosexual? What does their being obvious have to do with anything? And why would morale suffer because they couldn't expel that person? Seem to me that the morale problem wasn't the homosexual's fault, but was caused by the bigotry of the unit.
DADT was the wrong thing to do. Allowing openly gay people to serve while flaunting their lifestyle in the open is even worse. A military with homosexuals in it isn't as cohesive or effective a fighting machine. The soldiers, airmen and sailors have to trust one another. Given the record that many in the homosexual community have, that trust cannot be built.
Your problem seems to be with the "flaunting", which I find interesting. You seem to presume they should be ashamed of who they are, when clearly they are not.

My husband has told me several accounts of how homosexuals behave toward their peers in the armed services. Here's one. A gets B drunk and rapes him in a bar. This happened in my husband's unit more than once. No amount of sensitivity training or political correctness is going to fix this problem.
Rumors abound in the military. I wouldn't believe all the stories I've heard, especially those kinds of stories.

I bet in a couple more years the whole issue will be dead and gone. Young people aren't as prejudiced as the older generation are. As the dinosaurs retire, the whole thing will vanish into history.
 

jwp98

New member
Being gender blind won't work (although talking specifics may get you labeled sexist) and I think being orientation blind won't work either.

I'm glad they have the opportunity to serve. I guess it will be a good experiment. But will we see the results clearly?

I have heard tales of gay men behaving badly, sexually, under the stress of combat. I have no personal experience with this.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Being gender blind won't work (although talking specifics may get you labeled sexist) and I think being orientation blind won't work either.

I'm glad they have the opportunity to serve. I guess it will be a good experiment. But will we see the results clearly?

I have heard tales of gay men behaving badly, sexually, under the stress of combat. I have no personal experience with this.
I have heard of heterosexual men behaving badly under the stress of combat, too. These behaviors have nothing to do with sexual preferences. They have to do with fear and psychological weaknesses.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 20th, 2011 11:01 AM


toldailytopic: What do you think about the new openly gay military?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.


I think--

What comes next?

LA
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
No doubt she joined because she is a patriot! Unlike many men! You unmitigated dweeb!

Be that as it may, doesn't having women in the military promote sexual immorality, decrease overall troop cohesiveness and morale, etc?
 

ragTagblues

New member
Be that as it may, doesn't having women in the military promote sexual immorality, decrease overall troop cohesiveness and morale, etc?

You could also say the opposite . . . . Could be a morale boost and as to cohesiveness, well do you want me to draw you a picture? :chuckle:

It really isn't the case, since any female in the army is there on her ability purely, they become just a part of the team I'm sure.
 
Top